Lost In America, Org.

Are Employees At A Disadvantage In Unemployment Appeal Hearings?

By Christopher Cross

There can be no question of whether or not an unemployment hearing reaches deeply into the realms of practicing law; all things about such hearings conforms to the very practices and principles of practicing law.  And because of this, a former employee must give careful thought to what they say and do during the entire process. 

Employer's are commonly armed with attorney's and human resource personnel, who are both skilled learned professionals in matters of employment law.  Thus, even if an employer enters into an unemployment appeal hearing they are already armed with legal knowledge to fight the appealing former employee. 

However, former employee's do not have the luxury of having a team of skilled learned professionals in their corner, giving them legal advice about unemployment hearings and as such, are at great disadvantage when ligitigating cases.  Perhaps even more so if and when appeal judges (referred to as Referee's) are corrupt in whole or in any part so as to prejudice the former employee in any way. 

U.S. Supreme Court Addresses Constructive Discharge In Employment

By Christopher Cross

In June 2004, the United States Supreme Court issued a rulling in Pennsylvania State Police v. Nancy Drew Suders centering on whether or not Title VII (sexual harassment) extends coverage to employees who constructively discharge their employment. 

Constructive discharge arrises when the working environment is so hostile that effectively the employee is forced to self-terminate their employement.  Generally, this also requires that the employer could reasonably foresee that its' conduct would be the causing factor, to-wit, a reasonable person in the same circumstance would do the same. 

The Supreme Courts' rulling highlights the requirements for an employer to gain immunity and therein defeat a constructive discharge claim by the plaintiff - employee who sues their employer for not taking the correct steps to repair the damages caused.

In this, the Court pointed out that ----

Look! Up In The Sky ~ Is It A Bird - The Flu - Or Just More Media Hype As Usual

By Christopher Cross

It's not like the media is above latching onto a story and milking it for all its' worth, after all, the media has done this for years to increate television ratings and newspaper sales.  But when it centers on issues of profound importance such as public health, where do we draw the line between good journalistic ethics and mere media hype. 

Well, the answer rests in whether or not there is factual credibility in the stroy being presented and a good sign of of whether this exists is by comparing your local news to each other to see if there are significant differences in facts being represented for the same story subject matter.  If there are substantial differences then it is likely that while there may be some truth existing, the majority is media hype.

In terms of the Bird Flu, the Centers For Disease Control reports that: "Because of concerns about the potential for more widespread infection in the human population, public health authorities closely monitor outbreaks of human illness associated with avian influenza. To date, human infections with avian influenza A viruses detected since 1997 have not resulted in sustained human-to-human transmission. However, because influenza A viruses have the potential to change and gain the ability to spread easily between people, monitoring for human infection and person-to-person transmission is important. (See Information about Influenza Pandemics for more information.)

Thus, the caution is not in actual sustained cases of human to human transmission of the Bird Flu but rather the ability of all viruses to mutate into a form that [might] lead to transmission between people, emphasis on the word [might] because it is not automatically guaranteed that once a virus or a bacteria mutates that it does so with the conscious decision to transfer from person to person.